Sivuovi on vanha, mutta se toimii.

The side door is old, but it works.

Breakdown of Sivuovi on vanha, mutta se toimii.

• olla: to be
• vanha: old
• mutta: but
• se: it
• toimia: to work
• sivuovi: side door

Questions & Answers about Sivuovi on vanha, mutta se toimii.

Why is there no word for the/a in Sivuovi on vanha?

Finnish doesn’t have articles (no a/an/the). Whether sivuovi is understood as a side door or the side door comes from context. In many everyday contexts, a bare noun like sivuovi can easily mean the side door if both speakers know which one is being discussed.

What is sivuovi exactly—one word or two?

It’s a compound noun written as one word: sivu (side) + ovi (door) → sivuovi (side door). Finnish writes most compounds as a single word.

Why is it Sivuovi on vanha and not Sivuovi on vanhana?

After the verb olla (to be), Finnish typically uses the nominative for predicate adjectives: on vanha = is old.
Vanhana (essive case) would mean as (being) old / while old, and it’s used in different constructions (e.g., Lapsena hän asui täällä = As a child, he lived here).

What form is on?

On is the 3rd person singular present tense of olla (to be).

• minä olen = I am
• sinä olet = you are
• hän/se on = he/she/it is
  So Sivuovi on vanha literally follows: [subject] + is + [adjective].

Why is there a comma before mutta?

In Finnish, when mutta (but) connects two independent clauses (each could stand as a sentence), you normally use a comma:

• Sivuovi on vanha, mutta se toimii.
  Both parts are full clauses: Sivuovi on vanha / se toimii.

What does se refer to, and why use it?

Se means it (or sometimes that), and here it refers back to sivuovi. Finnish often uses a pronoun in the second clause to avoid repeating the noun:

• Sivuovi on vanha, mutta se toimii.
  You could also repeat the noun, but it sounds heavier: ... mutta sivuovi toimii.

Could I omit se and just say ... mutta toimii?

Usually no, not in neutral written Finnish. Finnish typically requires an explicit subject (noun or pronoun) in a normal main clause. Dropping it would sound incomplete or very informal/elliptical in this context.

Why is the verb toimii in that form?

Toimii is the 3rd person singular present tense of toimia (to function/work). It agrees with the subject (se = it):

• minä toimin = I function/work
• hän/se toimii = he/she/it functions/works
  So se toimii = it works / it functions.

Does toimia mean work as in “have a job”?

Not here. In this sentence, toimia means to function / to work properly (like a device, system, door, plan). For “to work (have a job)” you’d typically use tehdä työtä or olla töissä.

Is the word order fixed? Could I say Vanha sivuovi toimii?

Word order is fairly flexible, but it changes emphasis.

• Sivuovi on vanha, mutta se toimii. neutral statement with contrast
• Vanha sivuovi toimii. = The old side door works. (more compact; focuses on the noun phrase vanha sivuovi)
  If you keep the contrast (but), the two-clause version is often clearer.

How would I make it negative?

Finnish negation uses a separate negative verb:

• Sivuovi ei ole vanha, mutta se toimii. = The side door isn’t old, but it works.
• Sivuovi on vanha, mutta se ei toimi. = The side door is old, but it doesn’t work.